On taxes, who should get the cut?

[The Wicked Wop]

I personally think Amercan's are still spoiled by the economic boom (or so called boom) of the late 90's and into early 2000. I hear people complain about the market and the economy, and in general terms growth is at a crawl. But think logically and looking at the market and the economy, I think its easy to say it was way overvalued for a number of years. Now people just can't be happy with the fact that the Dow is in the 8000's. LISTEN it shouldn't have been 12000 to begin with. I really think we are dealing with the reprocussions of that now. Everyone is skidish, but the only thing I can think to be worried about is possible going to war or a terrorist attack and what it may do to the economy....the fact is the DOW looks to have stabalized in the 8000's, interest rates are low, inflation is low, and unemployment is not spiking. I really think many people have set their desires of the Stock market and the ecomony to high....it needs time to recover.....FORGET about earning 25% a year on your investments....it was an allusion.

[Art]

Gbear,

I've decided I've given you too great a benefit of the doubt. I assume you have some passing knowledge of the topics you are addressing and increasingly it's clear you are not versed. You are merely reciting mantra without any real comprehension.

All I can say to you is that a faith-based organization can be a million things and not one, necessarily, has to be a church. Do you know that? Have you ever heard of Minnesota Teen Challenge? Or AA? Or the Boy Scouts? Or homeless missions? Or battered women shelters? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Secondly, it is absolutely part and parcel of what we were founded on to not establish any single church. Yet, we already grant churches of all sorts sweeping benefits granted them by the government in the form of exempting them from taxes. The Constitution says clearly that government shall not establish a national, state-run religion and that government shall make no law prohibiting the free expression of religion. It's clear.

Your BEST argument against it is a document written by a man who had no part in the ratification process of the Constitution, and who wrote words that largely support his religion and standing on the one-way relationship with religion. The founding fathers lived during a time when religious men were persecuted if they didn't follow the state church. They feared government imposing a church on men who believed differently. That's why religious freedom is such an amazing part of our country. That's why any plan that allows any faith to receive funding is Constitutional. As long as I have the Constitution to guide me and you have an article you don't understand that wasn't part of the Constitution to guide you, do you think you're going to win?

As for the rest, all I can say is, you simply are out of your league apparently in understanding economics. Admittedly consumer spending has been strong right through the recession and into the the growth period. Government spending has been super sweet as well. Yet, we still had a recession. Now. Connect the dots and figure out why?

The most damaging part of the entire stock conversation with you has been done by you to yourself. When you wrote that consumer staple stocks have done very well because consumer spending has been good, you don't even understand the terrible and glaring evidence this provides against you that consumer spending drives the market and economy. Assuming you were right, and you weren't, and every consumer staple was doing well because consumer spending was going strong as we know, then why did we still have a recession and maintain sluggish market prices? Because a huge other sector that actually drives revenue for most of the companies in the world have stopped spending.

Is the light on yet?

In closing, Gbear, it is, simply put, impossible to be a patriotic socialist. They are mutually exclusive when it comes to being an American. But, in order to understand why this is, you'd have to understand what America was founded on and you don't. This is very similar to when I wrote, after 9/11 to the vast outrage of many, people in other nations have the obligation and duty to rise up and overthrow oppressive governments and if they do not, we should not weep for those we kill in war, thinking they are innocent, because they are not. They are guilty of not living up to their obligations as citizens. People screamed that I was crazy to say that. NO one believes that, they told me.

And yet, when I posted words from the Declaration of Independence to highlight how little these people actually knew of their own founding beliefs, it simply highlights how little they love America. I see how little you do. It's a shame. I just hope as you realize that given how little you understand almost any issue we've discussed in this thread that as you gather an understanding of the actual data behind certain beliefs you may alter your course. We'll see .

[gbear]

Art, does the consitution allow for change? how about profound change? Is anyone who believes there should be change unpatriotic or is that reserved only for the people who want massive changes that you agree with? What about people who support only what is in place now and trying to keep it? Oh them, they must be unpatriotic socialistssocialist:laugh:

As for faith based organizations, I found this off a VERY quick search: Faith-based and community organizations that sponsor day care and after school programs and faith-based private schools are eligible to receive funding from the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide healthy, nutritious meals for children from low income families who are enrolled in their program

Could this be day care at a church? Would non members of the church be allowed to use the day care? What about kids or their parents who believed radically different things from the church? You listed a few fbo that appear not to have religous faith as a prerequisit for getting the benefit of federal dollars. That's fine. Can you assure me that will be the case across the board?

My point is that if you can not, and only people of a certain faith can get access to the good provided by these fbo's then that is in effect harming those of other faiths by not giving them access to government funded programs.

As for econ, consumer spending has not been strong. The numbers look okay only if you ignore that there are whole sectors suffering. I've tried to point that out. Those consumer spending numbers are propped up by a very few industries. I submit that in fact it's you who doesn't understand the numbers you are using.

[Art]

Gbear,

"Art, does the consitution allow for change? how about profound change?"

Sure it does. Do you know the section of the Constitution that allows for change, even profound change? As a hint, it's called the amendment process and it's in Article V of the document, and here's what it reads like, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

It's easy.

"Is anyone who believes there should be change unpatriotic or is that reserved only for the people who want massive changes that you agree with? What about people who support only what is in place now and trying to keep it? Oh them, they must be unpatriotic socialistssocialist "

Change is good, Gbear. Change is great. But, underlying everything there are founding principles by which we must never lose sight. If we do lose sight of our underlying principles while proposing change, it is change that isn't true to what we are as a nation. We've had a lot of changes to the Constitution since it was originally enacted. Good stuff like the Equal Protection Clause and allowing women the right to vote. When people follow the amendment process to dictate that students in Colorado can't express their faith when memoralizing their friends, then it'll be hard to argue the point, even though it would still be a fundamentally different belief by which we are guided on.

"As for faith based organizations, I found this off a VERY quick search: Faith-based and community organizations that sponsor day care and after school programs and faith-based private schools are eligible to receive funding from the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide healthy, nutritious meals for children from low income families who are enrolled in their program"

Yeah. Isn't it great.

"Could this be day care at a church? Would non members of the church be allowed to use the day care? What about kids or their parents who believed radically different things from the church? You listed a few fbo that appear not to have religous faith as a prerequisit for getting the benefit of federal dollars. That's fine. Can you assure me that will be the case across the board?"

You tell me. You looked up the application of the law. Tell me if you see where it is written in an exclusionary manner. Don't ask me. Research what is being proposed. Research how it is being discussed. Don't ask me questions like you are without knowing the issue at hand. Know the issue and once you demonstrate you do, ask questions. I suspect you'll find the purpose of the faith-based initiative is to encourage community charities, like churches and other organizations, to reach out and assist members of the community kind of like it did before government replaced community as the helping hand. And, I'm not even religious. I don't believe any of that cr@p. I do know if I had a drug problem though I'd go to a faith-based treatment program. If I had the weakness of drugs, substituting faith may be just the way to lift me out of the cycle rather than secular programs that teach self-reliance, which, of course, is the problem in the first place. .

"My point is that if you can not, and only people of a certain faith can get access to the good provided by these fbo's then that is in effect harming those of other faiths by not giving them access to government funded programs."

My point is you have never read what the faith-based initiative is. You've NEVER read a paper on it. You've never listened to a speech. You NEVER knew faith-based programs can receive federal grants if it complies with federal programs like the nutritious meals. The point is you don't UNDERSTAND at all what's being discussed. All you've heard is "faith" and assumed in some manner that the government must exclude any interaction whatsoever to the point of prohibiting faith-based organizations from receiving federal dollars that secular organizations can. The U.S. Constitution wasn't about the exclusion of religion from government. It was not lifting the principle of atheism as the way. Do you NOT know this?

"As for econ, consumer spending has not been strong. The numbers look okay only if you ignore that there are whole sectors suffering. I've tried to point that out. Those consumer spending numbers are propped up by a very few industries. I submit that in fact it's you who doesn't understand the numbers you are using."

The numbers look good because the numbers are good. I understand strong consumer spending means strong consumer spending. Does it mean that in EVERY sector of consumer spending that we're at all-time highs? No. Thank goodness I never thought that.